Site Mobile Navigation

British Voting Marks End of Labour's Hegemony

LONDON — After a campaign that brought much new — the first televised leadership debates, above all — Britons embraced a familiar ritual on Thursday, crowding to 42,000 polling stations to cast ballots in what promised to be the closest electoral contest in a generation.

While the future seemed unpredictable — whether in the hands of David Cameron, the Conservative challenger, a weakened Gordon Brown, the Labour prime minister, or with a prominent role for Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats — the verdict delivered is certain to mark the end of a 13-year era in which the Labour Party established an extraordinary hegemony over Britain’s politics.

Even more extraordinary, perhaps, is that the architect of that euphoric Labour triumph in 1997, Tony Blair, played only a minor part in this campaign, his legacy tarnished by the war in Iraq which three years ago cost him his premiership.

Mr. Blair’s sideline role was tangible right from the start, when he appeared in the working-class area he once represented. The audience was handpicked and television cameras were barred before questions began.

Even then, things went wrong. His first phrases were uttered with a clear mid-Atlantic lilt; his suntan was a reminder of his globetrotting lifestyle, far removed from the gritty working towns and middle-class enclaves that once found him so appealing.

It was hard to recall the morning in 1997 when Mr. Blair, then 43 years old — the age of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg today — swept into 10 Downing Street on a landslide, bringing Labour to power for the first time in 18 years.

Now, even supporters are unsure what were the achievements of the formidable — if fractious — tandem of Mr. Blair and Mr. Brown, for 10 years his chancellor of the Exchequer.

The social, economic and political successes of New Labour, as Mr. Blair called the party, were balanced by failures that left a country battling to control disastrous public finances and scarred by the war in Iraq.

Roger Liddle, a former adviser to Mr. Blair in Downing Street, said Britain had seen a “a good social democratic government” but conceded that “the 13 years does disappoint a bit.” The unpopular war in Iraq proved so toxic, he said, that it severed Mr. Blair’s bond with voters.

“New Labour falls into two halves: pre- and post-Iraq,” he said. “Iraq destroyed a lot of trust with the voters.” He noted that though Mr. Blair won the election in 2005, he did so with just 35 percent of the vote.

Although Mr. Blair kept a low profile during most of the current campaign, he surfaced again this week. The accent was back to normal, the tan had faded and the political message was sharp.

By one measure — winning elections — New Labour was an undoubted success. He won three elections and handed power to Mr. Brown three years ago.

David Held, professor of political science at the London School of Economics, said that in the 1980s, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Conservatives held sway, Labour seemed hopelessly fragmented. “No one thought that Labour would win again,” he said.

New Labour’s early years in power saw big accomplishments: devolution for Scotland and Wales, independence for the Bank of England and a peace deal in Northern Ireland.

In addition, Professor Held argued, Mr. Blair “created an inclusive politics of prosperity, sympathetic to the situation of the wealthy while trying to create economic opportunities for everyone.”

On the back of strong economic growth before the 2008 financial crisis, New Labour oversaw a huge expansion in spending in health, education and transport. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, spending on public services increased by an average 4.4 percent a year in real terms under Labour, compared with 0.7 percent under the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997.

That report cites estimates of a one-third increase in quality and quantity of public services from 1997 to 2007. But it adds: “If the government had managed to maintain the ‘bang for each buck’ at the level it inherited in 1997, it would have been able to deliver the quantity and quality of public services it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less.” In other words, $63.5 billion.

“On public services there was waste and too much top-down targeting,” Mr. Liddle said. “We would have got better value for money if we had continued to grow public spending in the public services, but not as fast as we did.”

Anthony Giddens, one of the architects of Mr. Blair’s centrist “third way” philosophy, argues that, while “Labour’s record is distinctly patchy,” the government had impact. In an article to be published shortly, he cites the introduction of a national minimum wage, investment in public services and health and education reforms. “Overall economic inequality was contained, although not significantly reduced,” he said. “The position of the poor, however, improved substantially.”

Yet the next government will have to make drastic cuts in spending to slash a budget deficit forecast to be 12 percent of gross domestic product this year. That has prompted an inquest into what is seen as Labour’s reliance on the lightly regulated financial services and a lack of an industrial strategy.

“Mistakes were made in the early years,” Mr. Liddle said. “We weren’t sufficiently tough on financial regulation and we were rather naïve with what turned out to be a stock market bubble.”

Other failings marked the Labour years. One grew out of Mr. Blair’s unrivaled presentation skills.

In 1997, when Diana, Princess of Wales, was killed in a car crash just months after he took office, Mr. Blair captured the public mood, describing her as “the people’s princess.”

Only a year later, Mr. Blair’s hyperbolic tendencies were on display during talks in Northern Ireland. “A day like today is not a day for sound bites, we can leave those at home,” he said, before adding: “But I feel the hand of history upon our shoulder.”

New Labour’s reputation for spin began to corrode its credibility, giving the impression that it prioritized presentation over policy. Despite Mr. Blair’s enthusiasm for closer ties with European Union partners, for example, his government failed to shift public opinion, which remains hostile toward closer European integration. Feuding with Mr. Brown led to a block on key policies including Mr. Blair's ambition to take Britain into the euro (something the current crisis has appeared to vindicate).

In some areas, civil liberties were eroded, while in others, like gay rights, they were extended. Concern about climate change became mainstream, as it has in much of Western Europe.

Perhaps the greatest tribute of all to New Labour’s legacy is that much of its social agenda has been “embedded” in the policies of Mr. Cameron, the Conservative leader who shifted his party to the center ground, Professor Held said.

Mr. Liddle agreed. “You can argue,” he said, “that, if Margaret Thatcher’s achievement was to convert Labour to the market, then New Labour’s achievement was to convert David Cameron to a positive view of society, a concern for the less well off and the need to tackle injustice.”